I would also like to know where you see countries in Europe falling on the spectrum. Growing up in the UK in the 90s it was pretty free range, but my impression is that modern parents here are much more paranoid (although not to the insane degree I read about in America).
I feel like guys often pick the “waitress” over the girl boss.
Depends what you mean by often. Sure, it happens sometimes, but not enough to affect the stats, which show a clear relationship between spousal income. Rich men are also less likely to marry a woman significantly older or younger. This article has details it with many nice charts.
It was probably more common in the past, when people married outside their own class more often (think the lawyer who meets a nice girl at the local church vs at grad school)
oranges obviously are far more convenient to eat if you don't have access to a knife
A knife? Why on earth do you need a knife to eat an apple?
Eat the whole damn thing, core and all! (You have my permission to throw away the stem)
I see /r/Canada issued an obligatory reminder to not spread hate or misinformation. It is important to be careful.
They were deleting any comments about the shooter's identity until it was 'confirmed by the authorities'.
Which sounds fine, until you realise that the authorities were explicitly and deliberately lying. The shooter was not a female in a dress, he was a male in a dress.
Did you know that 10 people were killed by a (potentially transgender) school shooter in Canada yesterday?
The Telegraph, a right-wing paper, quoted the Canadian Police to say that the shooter was 'a female in a dress' before updating the headline to describe him as a 'gunperson in a dress', also a quote from the Canadian Police.
I'd have loved to be in the room when then Canadian law enforcement were deciding how to present the killing. Its as if someone genuinely thought they could keep the killer's sex a secret, or perhaps 'female in a dress' was a deliberate piece of malicious compliance.
EDIT: The police have now released the name of the perpetrator, it's this guy.
Ken Follet's Pillars of the Earth, while fairly historically accurate, completely fails to capture the medieval mindset
Having read the book, I do kind of get what you mean, but I'm not sure whether it's just the plain, modern language that the book is written in. Could you elaborate?
Spanish people (like Puerto Ricans and Brazilians and Chileans and Mexicans) are not white
I assume you don't literally believe this, unless you genuinely don't class the Spanish royal family with their blonde daughters as white (or European, a much more useful term. White is a colour, not a race or ethnicity).
I can get why you wouldn't class a Spanish-speaking mestizo whose ancestry in mostly Amerindian as European, since they're mostly not European. But what about someone like Marco Rubio? Is his 100% European DNA not 'white', by your definition? What percentage of European ancestry is required for someone to be classified as white?
And if Spanish people are complely excluded, are there any other European ethnic groups that don't count? What about Italians, French, Poles? Are they 'white'?
Your question implying Puerto Rico is somehow akin to Eastern Europe is absurd.
I think you're referring to someone else's comment.
It was also devoid of white peoke completely
Are we ignoring Bad Bunny himself? Or are Spanish people their own race which is somehow separate from all the other European ethnic groups?
From what I've learned, it makes people have their next children quicker, but doesn't make them have more of them
Which is not to say it isn't helpful. Moving births earlier still improves a country's demographic situation, because children born earlier will come to childbearing age earlier.
For a toy example, imagine two countries with a completed fertility rate (CFR) of exactly two, but one country has the children at ages 18 and 20, and the other has them at 38 and 40. Two parents who live to 80 in country one will have 16 great great grandchildren, while their equivalents in country two will only have four grandchildren.
I remember watching Veggietales in Religious Studies classes at school. We watched the episode where King David covets Bathsheba, even though he already had hundreds of other concubines rubber ducks.
Looking back at it now, I think it's pretty good given the limitations it sets itself (Old Testament stories, told in a child-friendly way, with 90s CGI).
I mean, it's no Recess, but it's pretty good.
You only post about how women are terrible. Even on a discussion about men doing law enforcement you manage write a comment mocking women.
The word misogynist is horrendously overused, but in your case I think it is fitting. Fear hating women is the mindkiller.
Sure, but that also describes many people who voted for Trump. Should we deport every working-age able-bodied adult who falls below a given productivity threshold?
If they are immigrants rather than than citizens, then yes. All immigrants should contribute to their host country.
But deportation of illegals isn't a punishment or a form of demographic shaping, it's correcting a breach in the law, like repairing a vandalised window. France* shouldn't be deporting the native French underclass because they are rightly France's problem, but France absolutely should deport its immigrant underclass, especially if they arrived illegally. Similarly, the heritage American dysfunctional Trump voters are America's problem, why should any other country be obliged to take them?
*I chose France to avoid the mess of birthright citizenship, which should obviously be abolished due to the moral hazard it represents.
It doesn't mean I think DUI is okay or shouldn't be enforced.
This analogy would work better if the drunk driver was choosing to drive drunk every single day for years. He can stop at any point, but he chooses not to. Residing in a country illegally isn't committing one crime, it's committing the same crime every day for however long you stay in the country.
From the perspective of someone who has engaged in neither therapy nor confession, confession seems more masculine than therapy. More resolution, less rumination. But I may be way off on that.
It's not really accurate to say that humans are 'not monogamous'. We are not perfectly monogamous, but we are mostly monogamous. The modal human reproductive unit is, and always has been, one man and one woman.
There are some cultures that allow a degree of polygyny for elite men, but those cultures are being outcompeted by monogamous ones because polygamy reduces fertility.
To say 'humans are polygynous' because a small minority of societies allow a small minority of men more than one wife, is a bit like saying Japan is a violent country because some small percentage of the population commits violent crime.
What the hell is protein?
British supermarkets could be found selling 'protein pots' at one point.
(It's two boiled eggs and a bit of spinach)
My favourite part of that game is that it penalises the player for having 'ideological thoughts'.
One does wonder if anyone making that game thought 'Are we the baddies?' at any point?
For the real life equivalent, consider Louise Perry (who even dyed her hair purple recently).
USA 1.6 TFR is not evenly distributed. It is, as with Europe now and world history ad a whole massively overrepresented by 1st and 2nd gen minorities, which are potentially but not necessarily economically acretive to the USA.
First and second generation minorities is an odd phrase. First generation immigrant makes sense, but minority and immigrant are not synonyms.
As it happens, among US-born people (including second gens immigrants), all racial groups have roughly the same TFR, except Asians, who are consistently lower. African Americans have recently fallen below Euro-Americans and are falling fast, which suggests that they may end up with Asian-level TFR soon enough, since their low numbers are already artificially inflated due to higher birth rates among African and Caribbean immigrants.* First gen Asian immigrants have extremely low fertility.
Hispanic TFR is higher among immigrants, but it is overstated due to how it is measured. Since the numerator is babies born, while the denominator is young women legally in the country, illegal immigrants having anchor babies makes the hispanic immigrant TFR look higher than it really is.
With Trump's immigration crackdown reducing illegal immigration from Latin America, it wouldn't shock me if we start seeing white births increasing as a share of all US births in the next couple of years.
*African American wages are actually increasing significantly between generations due to the relatively elite nature of African and Caribbean immigration. Apparently the Great Replacement also involves replacing low-IQ 'native' African Americans with high-IQ Nigerians and Jamaicans!
I think you misunderstand my (and I think Corvos') point. I wasn't arguing that the US wasn't playing fair. No country has ever played fair, but right now the US is playing stupidly by alienating its allies and neighbours.
Trump will never get Greenland, but he has managed to piss off an entire continent by acting like a petulant toddler because it hasn't simply been handed to him. And as far as I can tell, he only wants Greenland because he didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize and because it looks big on the Mercator projection.
Whatever the US' strategic aims are in the future once the Mad King dies, the country's ability to achieve those aims has been, potentially, permanently damaged.
I think the issue with the Uk is the country has not done anything to earn respect for a very long time. If you want a seat at the table you need to do something.
America is a continent sized country bordered by two oceans, a sparsely populated tundra and a third- (although rapidly approaching second-) world country. It has the world's largest patch of arable land, mountains of natural resources, the best river network in the world, and is populated mostly by high-IQ Europeans. You (assuming you are American) are playing with cheats on.
If we're going to assign moral failings to individuals based on the countries they live in, then you are a failson being constantly bailed out by daddy's trust fund.
Could some American enlighten me about this obsession with Europe's demographic replacement
As is often the case, I find myself pointing to Noah Smith's read on the situation:
The U.S. as a whole was never racially homogeneous. Black people were always there, and they never dipped below 10% of the population. Americans in the North had frequent contact with Native American populations. California and Texas had Hispanics before they had Anglos. But in the American mind, Europe stood across the sea as a place of timeless homogeneity, where the native white population had always been and would always remain. In the 20th century, as American consciousness of ethnic differences between Poles, Italians, Germans etc. faded, perceptions of Europe as homogeneously “white” grew stronger.
In the mind of many Americans, Europe thus stood as both a refuge and a reservoir. America itself was a rough, contested frontier, but Europe would always be white and Christian. If you ever felt the need to live around a bunch of white people of Christian heritage, you could always go “back”, but for most that wasn’t necessary — just knowing that the Old World was somewhere out there was enough.
...
Anyway, in the 2010s, it dawned on those Americans that this hallowed image of Europe was no longer accurate. With their working population dwindling, European countries took in millions of Muslim refugees and other immigrants from the Middle East and Central and South Asia — many of whom didn’t assimilate nearly as well as their peers in the U.S. You’d hear people say things like “Paris isn’t Paris anymore.”
By contrast, society is unwilling to tell average women that their fantasy of exclusive commitment from a highly desirable man is just as unrealistic and unreasonable as an average man's fantasy of building a harem. If Mr. Tall Dark and Handsome won't commit, it's because men are bad people. And women are encouraged to feel angry and cheated that their primal desires have gone unfulfilled.
I'd love to see something more concrete than the mere assertion that 'society says this', because from my experience, women are intimately aware of how they rank in the dating market and are able to adjust their expectations accordingly. Indeed, that's why most people were able to couple up - at least until smartphones caused us to stop socialising in person.
If 'society' is truly telling women they are perfect and deserve perfection, why did 'society' only start doing this around 2014 or so?
It has of course recently been discussed (at long last) just how hard the deck was stacked against young men over the last 15 years.
Your daily reminder that countries other than America exist.
The collapse in coupling is a global phenomenon, it's happening everywhere. America went crazy with race and sex discrimination during the Great Awokening, but basically nowhere else did. Even in the UK, there was nothing like what was detailed in the Compact piece. Wokeness was always mostly an Anglo phenomenon.
The second article you link highlights the real issue. It's the phones (where phones are a stand-in for atomised, digital, addiction-driven daily life).
is PRC... Good?
Excluding city states, it has the fourth lowest birth rate in the world, probably about 0.9 right now and falling fast.
They've got a few decades left, but before long China is gonna be the world's largest nursing home.
- Prev
- Next

Seems like a remarkable coincidence, dontcha think? That the people being segregated just happened to have a murder rate that was 5-10 times higher than the majority population?
Saying 'they were segregationists' seems close to saying they were murderists.
More options
Context Copy link